Op Ed: Attack On Unionism Hurts Worker Right For Free Association

(EUGENE, Ore.) - Nothing Bush has perpetrated so far flings dirty sand into the face of the American worker more than his open attack embedded in crisis-forced cooperation to rescue the auto industry.

His projected “rescue” of carmaker corporations profanely proposes politically-motivated wage-bleeding by auto-workers already closely equated with non-unionists at foreign-brand factories in the U.S.

That perpetuates, promotes and extends one of the most damaging, dismaying, and deeply offensive actions ever taken vs honest, open American worker association in unions.

Unionism simply provides pragmatic access by lone, isolated workers to the strengths available only by cooperative action with others --in pursuit of their personal definition of happiness.

It is worldwide-recognized as the most powerful way workers can combine to combat overwhelming corporate power provided by easy access to dollar-defined devastating anti-worker muscle.

Our workers have “the American right to free association”, long recognized as “strong tradition in our nation from Colonial days”. That right allows them to combine and cooperate in their efforts to achieve personal “pursuit of happiness”. As our nation developed, that has come to mean, very simply, “a living-wage/level job.”

Here Bush again followed that powerful previous mentor of his, “Dutch” Reagan, for many of the desperately-destructive neocon-shaped policies from which we now suffer at many levels.

Major massive impact on our economy and our culture and social programs apparently is still not enough to satisfy Bush II’s imperial appetite for unwarranted power --like his mentor, not called “Dutch” for naught.

It was Reagan who rapidly wrapped up his early days as President with the first of many more union-killing actions in his regime.

Death-design for the struggling air controllers union demonstrated for all in corporate management what could --and should !-- be done to derail, demount and defeat unionism, under his UN-compassionate eye.

The auto industry, not by chance but by definite determined and dedicated union efforts, became by far Exhibit One in our American way-of-life, for several generations.

That was one of the very large-and-lingering areas for New Deal emphasis and action, with very large-and-lingering impacts on the formation and development of our American middle-class montage of freedoms and better futures for families.

Without those large gains-then via unionism the very shape and pattern of American life would be far different.

These new “cooperative associations in action” then survived various vicissitudes of union life and complex development. The historic record surely is strong and good as that of the corporate chieftains who headed, say, Enron or Long-Term or WorldCom, or the growing group of "wild-ones from Congress" during those same years.

With that “right of association” any group of workers can then combine with others on the job. That’s the ONLY way to compel the corporate “powers-that-be” to consider, complete, sign and live-with ANY agreements remediating otherwise radically unfair working conditions and compensation.

Given the overwhelming power of corporate dollar-piles devoted to keeping wages as low as possible, hours as long as can be endured, and conditions as primitive as legally permitted, the “corporate side” long had their way with the American worker.

American history abounds with union battles for the worker, with John L. Lewis, the CIO, Walther Reuther, and more recently the UAW leading the way through decades of desperate struggle. Those efforts are what have brought the blessings of many advances and absolute rights now recognized to the largest segment of our society --the “middle class”, broadly characterized.

At various historical times that overwhelming corporate power became so monstrously, massively disproportionate that Congressionally-mandated regulation was finally brought into being. That was the only pragmatic way to modify, manage and end the corporate manipulation the public has latterly learned to hate --now that deregulation has been allowed--with such intensity that national fury has become a new area for research by many sociologists, as well as “ a new force” broadly recognized by economists.

What else could be the case, given “the natural consequences” of corporate control continually causing desperate working-conditions and worker despair? Very few lone workers could stand against the well-understood fear of flat-out firing, and even retaliation for any and all self-defensive actions whatsoever.

But the American worker --reflecting another common characteristic --COURAGE-- took matters in hand and joined with brothers and sisters “on the job”. They made the corporate crowd listen, then learn, and finally NEGOTIATE --for their own survival and any continuation of profits when the strikes were over.

That’s what formed the longtime “social compact” quietly recognized and accepted generally in American life --and well understood by both union and corporate leaders.

The compact provided healthcare and other essential benefits --by corporate acceptance after union persuasion-- otherwise surely forced into being at huge additional costs to taxpayers.

Read: “Cost of benefits” was deductible both by corporate interests and by workers, the first as a “cost of doing business” and the second by exclusion from individual IRS-return, by Congressional decision.

That’s our well-known American history, reflecting the powers of the potent right of association.

That’s why the Bush action now is so devastating: Tied to unfair, uncontrollable vulnerability forced upon the UAW and other unions by both leadership incompetence and industry failure to recognize realities, it substitutes a poorly-concealed bludgeon for ethical action demanded by Presidential responsibilities.

What it tells all of us is that “nothing counts except cronyism for corporate colleagues.” What it repeats --again !-- is that whatever is done will be directed simply and solely to corporate welfare --if we are so weak-willed to allow that to happen again.

Utter contempt for any cooperative action assisting workers in that epic, historic struggle is the hallmark of this latest-last/shot liaison with corporate interests by the Bush-cabal band of incompetent perpetrators.

Strong, sustained, wise and closely-regulated public support for these essential industries, via return of real regulation run by law-and-rule, not crony-capitalism as concealed give-away of MORE billions.

That requires officials dedicated to Congressional decision rather than to avoiding and evading the laws.

Abandonment of long-sustained broad contribution to American manufacturing superiority with worldwide impacts, not only on the economy but in the provision of healthcare and allied benefits due to millions of workers. We cannot afford THAT, either.

We’ve allowed auto-industry decimation, by our apathy, to descend into continuing management frivolity with unavoidable consequential public frustrations.

We cannot afford that calamity of utter corporate irresponsibilities, but we cannot afford to decimate and pauperize THREE MILLION WORKERS involved, either.

We must “pick up-the-pieces and put them back together now”, as we do the same for so much more-- desperately damaged by this same rapacious gang of perpetrators.

Henry Clay Ruark is the one of, if not the most experienced, working reporter in the state of Oregon, and possibly the entire Northwest. Hank has been at it since the 1930's, working as a newspaper staff writer, reporter and photographer for organizations on the east coast like the Bangor Maine Daily News.
Today he writes Op-Ed's for Salem-News.com with words that deliver his message with much consideration for the youngest, underprivileged and otherwise unrepresented people.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Sol Menashe January 5, 2009 10:55 am (Pacific time)

Haynes Johnson Reagan quote source as requested: "Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years Haynes Johnson (New York: Doubleday, 1991)." To those unfamiliar with what essentially is Conservatism's ultimate goal, which Reagan also desired, it is about the pursuit and maint. of "individual freedoms." When you distill all the boilerplate and other verbiage by our founders, that is what they were talking about. Everything emanates from this notion of "individual freedom." Those who attempt to say otherwise are very easily detected. Be alert. Be vigilant. Be involved.

Henry Ruark January 4, 2009 3:11 pm (Pacific time)

Sol M: Please identify your source re the statements from Haynes Johnons and Reagan's "in his memoirs", for my comprehensive files kept ever since he was Cal. Governor. Check of 'Dutch", returned for that purpose, shows only four spots in book re PATC,none closely resembling yours. Thanks for the decisive information and time to send it. You will soon see why it is of value to me, now, to confirm long-held additional points. Mine in Op Ed stand firm for NOW,pointing up the sunny mirage many fell for from him.

Henry Ruark January 4, 2009 2:16 pm (Pacific time)

Sol M.: Your continued civil and most pertinent responses highly appreciated, not only for tone but for content and cogitation demonstrated. Will respond to several points soon, perhaps in some detail in upcoming Op Ed but also here if can do so. Union-attack as basic to then-radical Reagan approach to government is strongly reflected in current economic crisis; will send "see with own eyes" shocker on this later today when properly vetted. Best in New Year to you and please continue your participation here, truly valued since it proves up so neatly (and nicely, too !) the worth of open, honest, democratic dialog, where we all share-and-learn --which in turn devalues the view Reagan insisted was so valid-then.

Henry Ruark January 4, 2009 11:25 am (Pacific time)

Rich et al: For strong research perspective on negative vs positive responses, relevant re tough welcome to O. before he even opens WH door, see: Negative Stories Add to Anxiety; Eric Weiner; www.wpost.com OR also at www.registerguard.com 1/4/08. DO believe we own P/Elect fair clear open shot for first 100 days, at least !! That's "the American Way" we boast about, now being abused badly in GOP circles suffering political denial after 30 years reign.

Henry Ruark January 4, 2009 9:42 am (Pacific time)

To all: "If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.” "Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well? Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People." -------------- Excerpt from Krugman column at www.nytimes.com, titled "Bigger Tha Bush", inserted here to accentuate fact some have seen huge holes in Reagan approach ever since it began. Fact of close connection with damaging racial attitudes, and "Southern strategy" is only start of hidebound hampering still continuing for many. One more reason for "informed opinion" vs propaganda-created political "philosophy" flying in face of real cognitive research and other work going back centuries. (See previous OP Ed re racism.)

Sol Menashe January 4, 2009 9:07 am (Pacific time)

This writer is 100% behind unionization as long as members can easily redress their grievences with leadership and that all elections are by secret ballot. A process our congress also uses in various circumstances. For national security and the general welfare of our citizens there are some bonafide reasons that "some" government employees should not be unionized. Air traffic controllers and the military for obvious reasons, but also Homeland Security personnel. During a bitter election in Georgia (2002) between Sen. Chambliss and Max Cleland, the unionization of Homeland Security was a significant issue that led to Chambiss' victory. It has been reported that Chambliss questioned Cleland's patriotism, though if you watch the political commercials that can be found on youtube, that did not occur. For example: One ad begins by noting that America is facing "terrorists and extremist dictators" -- briefly showing pictures of them -- and goes on to say that although Cleland said he "supports Bush at every opportunity," in fact he had voted against "the president's vital Homeland security efforts 11 times." In fact Cleland had stated he voted against the establishment of a Homeland Security Department ... "because it didn't allow for unionization of the work force." I would say that if the Georgia voters felt misled then Chambliss would have been voted out. As it is, he won a runoff election last December with a winning margin over 3 times that of President-elect Obama. Suffice, unions have their place in the work force, but not in every place. To say otherwise is naive. There are opinions about this and there is common sense, it is the latter that the majority of citizens have no doubt embraced.

Henry Ruark January 4, 2009 8:00 am (Pacific time)

Sol M: You cite quote re PATCO strike from Reagan "biography". Is that from "Dutch", by his own selection of biographer ? Please cite page-ref.if so, or if NOT, please ID yr source biography: author, publisher, copyright date, ISBN ? (As used here in our refs.) Appreciate your interest and ongoing participation; this to make sure mine own records are complete. Cannot check my "Dutch" copy-index since all four sons now reading in order from oldest-down !! Interest due to my evaluation and writing re "Dutch" ever since his D.C. arrival, with heavy baggage of Laffer-curve and "supply-side" due to contact later with Laffer in Chicago, when he refused to anwer query: "Could that napkin have been upside-down?" at client appearance. R's PATCO decision may have been correct at time; but same issue reversed by FDR, other Presidents, due to changing circumstances, and Reagan act DID undoubtedly cue off strong corporate attacks in national political trend THEN.

Henry Ruark January 3, 2009 3:10 pm (Pacific time)

ich et al: Appreciate your civil sharing of a solid source. However, must point out that, given O's already-known views, this is no surprise from those surveyed, especially from the source-named. Wellknown fact of polling is the "surround" in place inevitably from source of questionnaire if used, or by unconscious body language et al if physically faced. Do NOT mean to put down either source or findings, only to caution vs too heavy reliance on ANY poll, from my/side source OR your/side source. Your participation truly appreciated, let's share further as possible with best numbers as they change, sure to happen up OR down, probably NOY entirely from O decisions or actions.

Rich January 3, 2009 1:53 pm (Pacific time)

Henry as per our previous exchange regarding Obama's current ratings by current active military here is an excellent source below that is a 180 from what your unstated source was. Hopefully his numbers improve. "2008 Military Times poll: Wary about Obama Troops cite inexperience, Iraq timetable By Brendan McGarry - Staff writer Posted : Thursday Jan 1, 2009 11:06:56 EST When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey." http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/

Henry Ruark January 3, 2009 11:16 am (Pacific time)

To all: For final documentation of change in national attitudes re union struggle NOW vs in Reagan era, see The Nation (12/29/08) p. 9, Hard Times Without Studs; Tom Engelhart. He details very unusual-now sit-down strike then current in Chicago, with press conference by Obama backing worker's demands. This is complete reversal of Reagan attitude understood then as open signal to corporate interests to start intense attack on unions still underway, as by Walmart. There is no question possible in change of attitude via most Americans as stated in Op Ed. Further attack on significant development reports must be expected from increasingly desperate neocon remnant.

Henry Ruark January 2, 2009 8:04 pm (Pacific time)

Sol: Confused you with another hardhead, you only up to 2 times, not 18 ! Appreciate your participation even though your detail re Reagan irrelevant to Op Ed points and statement. You are correct on national feeling then, but that is the point, made clearly in previous Op Eds: Reagan took very sharp trend advantage, perhaps even did believe in what he did early on. But later...that's another story, starting with Iraq-Contra, Oliver North, many thousands killed in S. America, and dissolution of whatever he may have believed when he started. Consensus now as I have stated, by far, with both authorities and most of famed historians. If you wish dialog, ID self to Editor and we can continue without imposition on others in this limited space.

Henry Ruark January 2, 2009 6:46 pm (Pacific time)

Sol M.: Aware of sentiments then and of such statements as you cite. That in no way changes what I wrote in last Comment, which see. Point is meaning-now, not the "Good Morning In America" deal pulled over eyes of all then. Consensus now as reported, will stand on record, here and for 50 working years. Where's yours ? Cite places, pages, dates, titles, and any preparation. Time's a/wasting on minor point proven irrelevant; will consider issue closed. If you will further dialog, you can always ID to Editor for the direct contact offered you, now, for 18th time...

Henry Ruark January 2, 2009 12:22 pm (Pacific time)

Rich: Appreciate your strong explanation of your comment, and understand your concern. BUT point here is relevance of Op Ed statement re Reagan's start of strong corporate union attack via that signal action. THAT remains as undisputed as yours re calamitous impacts if strike had been allowed to commence. Reagan-action was intended to send signal, as numerous solid sources have stated and still continue to contend. (I checked again !) The corporate combination vs unionism itself has been a noted historical consensus on the Reagan era for years, and the Op Ed statement was made on that basis, from personal experience at the time, from previous study, and from current careful check; and stands untouched since it is plain old historical fact well recognized by authorities beyond our mutual competence. Please note I last-cited R's own biographer/his biography, and also continuing research now showing Walmart war vs unions is continuance of that same initiation and ongoing corporate action. IF you wish further, suggest you send TIM your detailed statement as article, signed and with ID information to achieve writer-credibility here. Thank you for your continued participation.

Sol Menashe January 2, 2009 11:21 am (Pacific time)

According to journalist Haynes Johnson, the decisive manner in which Reagan handled the PATCO strike convinced many Americans that he was "the kind of leader the country longed for and thought it had lost: a strong president" -- in sharp contrast to the widely-held view that Reagan's predecessor, Jimmy Carter, had been too indecisive. Reagan stressed that he derived no satisfaction from sacking the controllers. He pointed out that he was the first president to be a lifetime member of the AFL-CIO. And he was aware that PATCO had been one of the few unions to support his presidential bid. "I supported unions and the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively," he wrote in his memoirs, " but no president could tolerate an illegal strike by Federal employees."

Rich January 2, 2009 8:45 am (Pacific time)

There are many ghastly scenario's one can come up with if the aircraft controllers went on strike and grounded all civilian aircraft which would have backed up all domestic as well as incoming/outgoing overseas flights, stopping commerce on a global level and most certainly causing deaths on a growing scale. For example say you had a loved one waiting for an organ transplant in Denver and that matching organ in New York could not get there. Or emergency medicines for chronically ill became stuck at the airport? Etc.? Regardless of who stopped this strike, it was the correct action and it is indisputable, as I'm sure most people realize when it is explained to them of the inherent catastrophic liabilities a strike would have promulgated. If someone has some expert opinion ("expert" being the operative word) that a strike would not have caused even just one death, then I would like to see it.

Henry Ruark January 1, 2009 11:23 am (Pacific time)

Rich and Sol: Appreciate your deja vu re Reagan decision to smash air controllers. In retrospect, you have right to that opinion; consensus is not with you re historians and others assessing impacts. Op Ed point was thatimpact- action was start of anti-union drive still continuing, which is undisputable fact and the reality today, documented in depth, detail and authority in many references. Your point taken and truly appreciated, but in full retrospect irrelevant now to what has happened historically because it was done "Dutch" fashion, clearly as Op Ed states as signal for corporate attack. Even his own biographer, R-selected, agrees in "Dutch"-the book--also checked at time of Op Ed. Same "deja vu" reconsideration of '76 Revolution, taking into account all we now know about Founders, will illuminate deep details now-known too --but impact of '76 actions remains unaltered despite additional details on history pages. THAT was point made here. Would you really question that the smashing of the controller union did NOT signal other corporate actions for same impacts, extending even unto today ? IF so, cite refs. on research for check here. If not, consider this irrelevancy put to rest once and finally. FYI,recent research re Walmart stance refers to Reagan-era start and to controller/smash action.

Henry Ruark January 1, 2009 9:54 am (Pacific time)

S-cus: Previously you wrote: "If one is dealing with facts and they can be sourced/linked, what's the problem? If one is simply stating their opinion what's the problem? I find that those who see their viewpoints challenged successfully are the ones who attempt to stifle debate. You agree?" Missed this then, well worth words now. Re "facts"-sourced, depends on source: some here even trust Far Right source known to have precipitated Iraq War. Continual ref. ONLY to such is sure proof of p/p for its time, attention, space impacts here since "facts" defy reality as defined by other authoritative voices and impartial sources. Re "stating opinion", if the feeling so expressed is based on ONLY feeling, no checkable provable facts,no other prove sources, it ain't really true "opinion" but only b/button feeling,usual retreat into denial and p/p. Re "stifle debate" hardly applies here with constant invitation to "see with own eyes" sources we use, thus open to "evaluate with own mind" proof-of-opinion, too. IS some of this "subjective" ? Yes -unavoidable in any dialog and checkable only via proof-up of source and its proven reliability to actual reality and checkable fact, another reason to know from whom dialog cometh, as in any other civilized conversation. Thanks for your participation and value any further dialog re this fundamental for it.

Rich January 1, 2009 9:37 am (Pacific time)

Sol Menashe you are 100% right on regarding the air trafic controllers strike threatening not only national security but also it would have had a disasterous impact on a global scale. I was overseas at the time and fortunately got back to the states okay. Imagine if all flights other than military would have been grounded? All flights coming into the states would have also been stopped. A worldwide stoppage could have happened! I'm a firm believer in freedom of association and the right of unions to bargain for the best possible benefits, but this potential strike had to be stopped. It was the right thing to do. There are legitimate reasons why some strikes must be stopped in the interest of the welfare of people and the common good of the country, this was one of them. One just needs to engage in a little common sense to see what potentially could have happened.

Henry Ruark December 31, 2008 8:12 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Here's "see with own eyes" link to noted national columnist, with his own strong statement. Check out his column for the excruciating detail indicated in his lead here: www.wpost.com Add Up the Damage By BOB HERBERT Washington Post Columnist "Does anyone know where George W. Bush is? You don’t hear much from him anymore. The last image most of us remember is of the president ducking a pair of size 10s that were hurled at him in Baghdad. We’re still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is thrashing the Palestinians in Gaza. And the U.S. economy is about as vibrant as the 0-16 Detroit Lions. But hardly a peep have we heard from George, the 43rd. When Mr. Bush officially takes his leave in three weeks (in reality, he checked out long ago), most Americans will be content to sigh good riddance. I disagree. I don’t think he should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he’s done to this country." ------------------- You may disagree with his opinion, but it is impossible to question his facts from which it doth cometh.

Henry Ruark December 31, 2008 7:24 pm (Pacific time)

Sallie: Great New Year's wishes to you, sir, and thanks for civil rapport demonstrated in your comments. We not too far apart on bailout=prevention,perhaps on necessity-now. Please continue your helpful participation in our open, honest, democratic dialog channel provided by Tim/Bon, for which we should be mutually thankful now, too !

Henry Ruark December 31, 2008 7:21 pm (Pacific time)

Sol M.: Happy New Year to you, sir ! You are welcome to your opinion but not to factually erroneous assertions in abundance. Re "fleeced !", right on, starting withg Reagan attack on unions which is historical record. Whether justified is an assertion, unprovable except by historical consensus which here flies against you. If you wish further dialog, ID self to Editor and we can then pursue direct, sparing others here the space they deserve. Truly, thank you for your ongoing participation here.

Sallie December 31, 2008 5:10 pm (Pacific time)

With all due respect Mr Ruark, Article I Section 8 of the constitution, states that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties imposts and excises, and to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. I cannot find where it gives government the power to bail out private for profit companies. The Declaration of Independence, stated all the reasons why our constitution was written in the first place. Based on this read, it may be time to write another one. Our constitution today, means absolutely nothing. So with this said, I guess it isn't unconstitutional what our government is currently doing.

Henry Ruark December 31, 2008 12:06 pm (Pacific time)

Sallie et al: Please cite for record here your ref. within Constitution for what you claim. I agree, even without that, corporate bailouts exceeding bad policy ordinarily. Current disastrous economic de bacle is exception; here we face heavy damage to 3 MILLION or MORE workers if we allow the basic auot industry to die. Blame belongs on nation and governance leaders as well as companies, demanding what we can now due to repair longtime apathy and inattention allowing this to occur. IF you believe we should allow industry to die, what do you propose, longterm, for all those workers ? What separates yur unqualified assertion here from simple straighton attack to kill off, finally, UAW and unionism, now surely clearly seen as GOP motivation for filibuster ? Please name your solution in place of bailout, under tough demanded governance of what companies are required to DO ? Big-words assertions easy to write (I sometimes fall into trap myself !) but demand for solid proof from others with special right to be heard is the simple answer --esp. in any honest, open, democratic dialog channel as we enjoy here at S- N !!!

Sol Menashe December 31, 2008 2:10 pm (Pacific time)

There was a national security need to fire the aircraft controllers. Anyone who is interested in this matter should do the research and find out what would have happened if that strike allowed the grounding of our nations aircraft. Just think what that would have caused, even in the short term. In addition this unfortunate financial bailout will simply delay the process we need to go through to regroup our economy. The bailout of Wall Street and the Bankers was orchestrated by the democrats who were the top recipients of their political donations. In fact senators Chris Dodd and Obama were the top two who benefited from their donations. The UAW union also donated the majority of their political funding to the democrats. We who pay taxes have been fleeced! Other hard workers who have also been hurt in the current economy have been left out in the cold.

Sallie December 31, 2008 8:02 am (Pacific time)

Banks and companies should not be bailed out with taxpayers money. The big three auto companies are failing because they are poorly run companies and they will continue to be poorly run companies after the bailout. Union and non union jobs are being lost all over this country. It's not the government's role to use taxes to support "for profit" private companies. It's unconstitutional.

Henry Ruark December 31, 2008 7:41 am (Pacific time)

S-cus: You wrote:"...you had some anonymous pandering going on?!" Interesting you chose scene of slaves since those we find pandering usually turn out to be just that--slaves to political forces very similar to the ones your gang faced. How do we know ? Various means, including easy-symptoms via content analysis. Here they can escape, if they have political will to do so. If continued dialog shows same escape-determination as your gang did, in face of same combo of tandd (fill in words) re continued life after Bush IandII and neocon cabal, so be it...

Henry Ruark December 30, 2008 4:38 pm (Pacific time)

Spartacus et al: Thanks for that re film, I knew of connection but not the scene you describe. Surely those surround Sp. in scene are to be honored, even praised --but here we do not (usually) kill off after torture anyone coming to us with solid-sense dissent. Most often we simply ask for detailed backup to make sure their stance cometh not solely from b/button (or similar) massage, then go-from-there as indicated. Turns out our instinctive S-N approach is right on target with depth research in this area of communications...will report soon on that in Op Ed, which I hope you will survey.

Spartcus December 30, 2008 3:34 pm (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark have you ever seen the Kirk Douglas movie SPARTACUS? Towards the end of the movie when Spartacus and his followers were defeated the Romans wanted Spartacus to receive some real special treatment. All those around Spartcus jumped up an claimed they were Spartcus. So in brief you had some anonymous pandering going on?! As far as Marx and CHE admiring Spartacus, that sure is fascinating, thanks for sharing. Here's the latest Illinois senator update: "Breaking News - Obama supports Senate Democrats not to seat Blao appointee | 12-30-08 |"

Henry Ruark December 30, 2008 10:20 am (Pacific time)

To all: Here's "see with own eyes" link from Marie Coco, WPost writer, at www.wpost.com: Republicans Marshall to Destroy Unions (Excerpt) "Understand that the conservative assault on the UAW is just a warm-up act. The main event for these contemporary Pinkertons is coming after Barack Obama is sworn in as president, and Democrats seek to pass a measure that would make it easier for workers to organize unions. It is the Employee Free Choice Act, and its intent is to push back -- at least a bit -- on the multimillion-dollar union-busting business that has become institutionalized since the political assault on labor was juiced up with President Ronald Reagan's 1981 mass firing of air traffic controllers. When Reagan supplanted the striking controllers with "replacement workers" (previously known as strikebreakers or scabs), business got the message: It was perfectly acceptable, if not advantageous, to bust unions or to keep them from being organized. From there, it was a small step toward the widespread use of unethical, and sometimes illegal, tactics." ------------------- I.e., deny/destroy the worker right to free association "in pursuit of happiness".

Henry Ruark December 30, 2008 9:45 am (Pacific time)

To all: No "guilt by association", simple statement of fact: "Karl Marx said Spartacus was his hero, citing him as the 'finest fellow' antiquity had to offer. Noted Latin American Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara was also a strong admirer of Spartacus." (See Wikipedia for "I'M Spartacus" origin.) --------------------- Don't YOU wonder who S. really is ? and why he wrote what he did ? Makes a difference in what it means to know from whence it cometh, right ?? Is he/she black, commenting on Nov. 4 ? Is he/she white, with still more p/p in mind via negativity here ? You can see how lack of source ID negates otherwise possibly positive, helpful sharing when that essential information is sometimes requested here, not for any purpose other than the strengthening of understanding achieved when source is known.

Spartacus December 30, 2008 7:38 am (Pacific time)

I have noticed that all viewpoints (ideological spectrum) have been posted here by those not using their identification. So are they all pandering? Regardless of what your opinion is on this matter, the vast majority of websites allow their posters to remain anonymous. Let's face it there are a lot of nuts out there who will and do act out. To think otherwise one would have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what is happening in the real world that it's almost embarrassing to hear/read otherwise. It certainly is an option for all posters to register on this site and receive an email password. As many professionals know, and not just in the media, but law enforcement, private business, etc. , valuable information is often received by people who want to remain anonymous. In the case of this particular website, the exchange of perspectives ( some seem to dislike those counterpoints) stimulates conversations whereas a more enhanced process of info exchange can happen. If one is dealing with facts and they can be sourced/linked, what's the problem? If one is simply stating their opnion what's the problem? I find that those who see their viewpoints challenged successfully are the ones who attempt to stifle debate. You agree?

Henry Ruark December 29, 2008 3:29 pm (Pacific time)

Spartacus: "Anon" by accident is one thing; by choice it is evasion of responsibility and any possible accoutability. Every publication has legal responsibilities to face when presented with such stuff, some of which here is surely legally open to question, as confirmed for me by leading Chicago attorney long ago. "Anon" as cowardly cover for political pandering is just that --cowardly and evasive. Why else do it ? When you visit another home, do you wear a mask ? OR do you expect to be known for whom and what you are ? Dirty-trick smear-stuff is far from good faith sharing for mutual learning by open, honest, democratic dialog as set up here, purposely. Dissent we welcome; political pandering will get you the proper response. If you can't tell one from the other, we cannot help you very much. P/p is the same weapon used by neocon noise machine, now nationally known for diversion of attention and disruption of common-sense honest dialog to share what people know and feel, with due responsibility as demanded for any honest conversation. Try sending even honest letter material to any other daily without full name, address and accounability, thus made a matter of record. IF you do not supply, you will never see publication in their sheet. Yes, most reporters know how to find out scads of stuff. SO what's your point re voters listings ? "Retaliation" ? That's excuse for most using evasion, comes from p/p-base instructions on "how to operate" vs open channels. National attention now focused by FCC on this problem will soon draw regulation, may even force Internet reform killing off opportunity if abuse is continued.

I'm Spartacus December 29, 2008 1:22 pm (Pacific time)

In a way probably the vast majority who post on this site do so anonymously, so I guess the vast majority of us are in contempt as per Henry Ruarks assessment. Mr Ruark are you familiar with Lane County voting records (many others also) and their public accessibility? Have you ever done any in depth professional background checks on people? I have and still do.

Henry Ruark December 29, 2008 10:24 am (Pacific time)

Puke et al: Yours from behind-the-tree of "anon" deserves only contempt, sir. As usual with such cowardly shots,it avoids any meaningful point re Op Ed content. Historical record supports the entire statement, and there is no reference whatsoever to Obama or what he may --or may not-- do. He won election fair-and-square, more than can be said of Bush-cabal. To substitute obvious lack of good faith usage in this channel, with rational points for sharing, is simple-minded political-pandering. You demonstrate deep disregard for all other readers by so doing, as well as reflect negatively on yourself, and by use of general-term "anon" on all others so signing stupid stuff self-recognized as such, which is why "anon"-used.

Anonymous December 29, 2008 2:34 am (Pacific time)

Don't worry people, Obama will save us all! He will bring the change. He is our savior and only he will save the American Dream ( puke)

Glen December 28, 2008 7:59 pm (Pacific time)

Amen to that, Hank.

[Return to Top]